By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, FEB 14, 2019: THE applicant seeks early hearing of an appeal filed in the year 2014.

It is submitted that a similar application was made earlier and their plea was allowed by the Tribunal vide an order dated 7th March 2016. However, the appeal could not be taken for disposal on the appointed date due to non-availability of Bench and was adjourned to 12 July 2016. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned on a couple of occasions and on 2nd May 2017, without placing the order in public domain, the Tribunal apparently rescinded its decision (of granting early hearing).

Upon entering another miscellaneous application for setting right this unsatisfactory situation, the Tribunal, vide its order dated 7th September 2018 confirmed the de-listing.

The appellant, therefore, submits that revisiting of a decision to allow early hearing, except in circumstances of non-appearance of the applicant on the listed date, is not in consonance with judicial consistency.

The AR did not have any specific objection to the applicant's plea of early disposal of the appeal.

The Bench considered the submissions and after going through the case records, while noting that the facts are unassailable, further observed –

++ it is apparent that the applicant herein, and therein, had never been placed on notice of intent to recall the earlier decision of the Tribunal.

++ the convention in this Tribunal, and indeed of any judicial institution, mandates mutual, even if reluctant, respect for orders of coordinate benches.

++ the implementation of a conscious decision, on evaluation of recorded facts and circumstances, should ordinarily be insisted upon; if the Tribunal has no regard for its own orders, it cannot, and should not, expect litigants and other authorities to have regard for its orders.

++ it is with regret that we are compelled to take note of our own self-abasement in this instance.

++ the matter could have been adjourned to a suitable date, consented to by both sides, instead of erasing the first decision out of existence.

Concurring with the first decision to allow early hearing, the Bench directed the Registry to list the appeal for disposal.

(See 2019-TIOL-484-CESTAT-MUM)